So, I'm from the Netherlands and I came across the above youtube clip. Now I was under the impression that this guy was an actual presidental candidate would-be in the US, but is that right? Whether or not you agree with euthanesia, every single 'fact' in his talk is false. Is he just a (very insulting) comedian or is he serious?

As BP said, Santorum doesn't have much of a chance. But there are religious whackos gaining power in the US that want to do all kinds of backwards things like that. They are threatened by freedom of choice. They would rather see an unwanted child born than a happy gay couple. If you search you tube for "tea party" you'll find lots of videos that reveal how truly stupid these people are. It's actually kind of scary for me to watch them but you might find it entertaining.

The thing I'm worried about more than their points of view (i'm a strong believer in democracy) is the fact that he's trying to convince people with 'facts' that can easily be proved wrong. Apparently there's not much weight on truthfullness with regards to the candidates otherwise I would (hope) expect candidates to not randomly call out numbers that don't excist.

But to clear it up: 10% of the people here are not euthanized. 5% of the people are not euthanized against their will In total about 2% of people are euthanized in some form, which includes withholding medication or being taken of lifesupport. Old people are not scared to go to the hospitalI've never seen a bracelet saying 'don't euthanize me'. (I have seen them the other way round by the way, cause it's not that easy to get euthanized...)

Last week a Dutch prince (yeah, we've got royalty) was in a skiing accident and got caught in an avalanche. He's in a coma and is expected to stay that way for years at least if he even ever gets out of it. Yet to be able to perform euthanisia will be very, very hard unless he's specifically signed papers saying that beforehand.

Personally I love the fact that I have the freedom to choose at any point that my life is done. And I'm very happy that if I'm not able to end it myself anymore that I can trust someone else will help me with it.

Sonja wrote:The thing I'm worried about more than their points of view (i'm a strong believer in democracy) is the fact that he's trying to convince people with 'facts' that can easily be proved wrong.

It's pretty hard to find any politician who doesn't distort facts to serve his or her agenda. There are two basic ways to build an argument: the way a scientist does, or the way a lawyer does. Politicians use the lawyer strategy: lawyers generally aren't interested in discovering or presenting the truth; they're interested in obtaining a favorable judgment. If that requires distorting the facts, they will happily do so.

Politicians take advantage of today's media sound-bite environment to make pronouncements that serve their case even if the facts can easily be proven wrong, because their sound bite will make the front page today, while someone researching their claims might never be heard or their rebuttal will land on page 22 of the newspaper next week.

Sonja wrote:The thing I'm worried about more than their points of view (i'm a strong believer in democracy) is the fact that he's trying to convince people with 'facts' that can easily be proved wrong.

It's pretty hard to find any politician who doesn't distort facts to serve his or her agenda. There are two basic ways to build an argument: the way a scientist does, or the way a lawyer does. Politicians use the lawyer strategy: lawyers generally aren't interested in discovering or presenting the truth; they're interested in obtaining a favorable judgment. If that requires distorting the facts, they will happily do so.

And the saddest part is that Americans are too lazy and stupid to actually question what they hear! People lament that politicians lie then they fail to ostracize them for doing so. That Santorum gets any votes is sickening, not because of his views but because of his obvious lies.

bpgui wrote:I agree with the sentiment, but since every politician lies, who can we vote for?

We vote for the politicians whose lies resonate most closely with our own priorities and views.

And unfortunately many people vote based purely on the "what's in it for me" criterion, rather than thinking about how a candidate might improve conditions for others.

It's not quite as bad as we're painting it here; some politicians at local and regional levels can be quite honest and transparent, but once the stakes get truly high (e.g., national politics), ideology takes over and truth-telling tends to fall by the wayside.

And lest anyone think I hate republicans or conservatives, I'm also not too fond of the constitutional lawyer we elected that promised to stop the human rights abuses in gitmo who now thinks it's ok to arrest and imprison citizens without warrant or trial.

If we've established that they all lie, who do we vote for you ask? I believe his name is Mickey...Mickey Mouse. At least we'd be entertained for a while.

brad wrote:We vote for the politicians whose lies resonate most closely with our own priorities and views.

But that's terrible! There is nothing wrong with voting for someone who shares your views. But if you know he (or she) lies, why would you vote for him? Is it actually a good thing that we have no choice but to vote for the least stink of the options?

brad wrote:And unfortunately many people vote based purely on the "what's in it for me" criterion, rather than thinking about how a candidate might improve conditions for others.

And here I just want a statesman. I want someone with the guts to stand up for what is good for the country. We have not had that for decades. I don't really care which party they come from, I would even vote for someone I did not agree with at this point. I just want someone who is not afraid to do what needs to be done - raise taxes, cut spending, stop government sponsored human rights abuses in the name of fighting terrorism to disguise an oil war...Americans are divided but I have no doubt that we could all come up with a list of 5-10 things that truly need to be addressed and a large proportion of us agree with. But we don't even get to have that dialog because the pols just want to lie and throw mud at each other.

brad wrote:It's not quite as bad as we're painting it here; some politicians at local and regional levels can be quite honest and transparent, but once the stakes get truly high (e.g., national politics), ideology takes over and truth-telling tends to fall by the wayside.

Perhaps. A friend of mine in his 60s told me that he went his entire life never contributing to a politician because he thought they were all corrupt. He finally found one who he though was truly honest. He did not agree entirely with his politics but he believed enough in his integrity to write a check. It turned out to be the guy from Louisiana who was caught with a freezer full of ill-gotten cash a few years back!

DoingHomework wrote:I just want someone who is not afraid to do what needs to be done

The problem, though, is that we can't seem to agree on what needs to be done. We can agree on some of the problems, but the approaches to solve them are tied closely to ideology. And we can't even agree on some of the problems, because ideology even determines what some people consider to be a problem. How, for example, did global warming become a partisan issue, with most conservatives denying its existence and most liberals believing in it? It should be a purely scientific issue, but conservatives have one set of scientists that they listen to, while liberals have another.

Sometimes I wonder if term limits would make politicians bolder, since they'd only have one term to make their mark. But even if we limited presidents to one 4-year term they'd still probably be timid due to the effect of unpopular decisions on mid-term elections. I think Obama's experience so far demonstrates that Americans say they want change, but they like the idea better than the reality: when confronted with actual, tangible change (e.g., universal health care) there's a huge backlash. What I hope he's learned is that most people will be unhappy with change no matter what, so there's no point trying to compromise with the opposition. Just push forward with your original vision.

geoff_tewierik wrote:And here I was thinking that santorum was a by product of a sexual act.

If it helps, Sonja, the sane part of the United States is scratching their heads at how Santorum became a serious candidate. I mean really, he wants (and started!) a national conversation on if women should have access to birth control.

As near as I can guess, the state of the economy has been so bad for so long, people are clinging to the idea that if "immoral" people were kicked out of office and "moral Christians" were put in, that everything would somehow right itself.

kaitlyn142 wrote:As near as I can guess, the state of the economy has been so bad for so long, people are clinging to the idea that if "immoral" people were kicked out of office and "moral Christians" were put in, that everything would somehow right itself.

I think the whole moral/immoral/religious-right thing is more about a distraction and dispensing with rational thought than it is about the economy. Based on what I know about the historical facts, Jesus would have most certainly been a democrat and definitely a social liberal.

But really, who cares about any of that? We just need people who will put the country first before their own selfish beliefs or politics.